2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight
January 15, 2019 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight proudly announces the promotion of Renata Hoddinott, Sarah Marsey and Annette Mijianovic to Partner in January 2019.
Renata and Sarah joined Haight’s San Francisco office in 2016. Renata relocated from a litigation firm in the Los Angeles area. She focuses her practice on professional liability, general liability, risk management & insurance law and transportation law.
Before coming to Haight, Sarah was with a respected trial firm in Anchorage, Alaska. She handles a variety of complex matters in appellate law, food safety, construction law and general liability.
Annette has been with Haight’s Los Angeles office for almost 12 years. Annette joined the firm as a summer clerk in 2007 and has continued to build her practice handling cases related to commercial litigation, products liability and transportation law.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Renata L. Hoddinott,
Sarah A. Marsey and
Annette F. Mijanovic
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA
July 10, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Withdrawal liability is a huge issue facing unionized employers. According to Bloomberg, 93% of the Top 200 largest pension plans are underfunded by a combined $382 billion. Contractors that withdraw from a multi-employer pension plan can face hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in assessed withdrawal liability. However, employers may be able to avoid that liability, plus the legal and consulting fees to fight it, by simply reading their collective bargaining agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List
July 13, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPWALNUT CREEK, Cali. – JULY 7, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney
Alan Packer has been selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor. Packer will be recognized in the August 2017 issue of
Northern California Super Lawyers Magazine.
Packer is a partner in the firm’s expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters.
Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to mechanic’s liens, construction litigation, insurance issues, and related matters.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined
November 30, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLargely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”).
To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.
October 24, 2021 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn
Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off.
The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case
July 28, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsBad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA.
The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?
March 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would
essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers. It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction.
Of course, as soon as I posted last week, my friend and colleague
Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then
gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog. The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or
discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them. I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them. As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that
you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future.
The first of his two points is more interesting and in some ways more easily supported. However, where we are speaking of contracts between businesses where both sides are bound by the terms of the contract, it begs the question of whether in seeking to make contracts more “fair” we could add a layer of uncertainty that could cause more problems than it solves. Do we really want courts stepping in after the fact to renegotiate the terms of a deal that was struck months or possibly years before because one judge believes that the deal was too one sided? Do we really need such “Monday morning quarterbacking?” Is one person’s idea of “fair” better than another’s when both parties to the contract had the full ability to read, negotiate and possibly reject the deal long ago? Personally, I think that the answer to these questions is, in all but the most egregious cases or where the legislatures have stepped in adding certainty (whether to the good or bad), “No.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty
March 05, 2015 —
Zainab Fattah – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- A penthouse “overlooking the Queen’s balcony” will cap a London luxury apartment project planned near Buckingham Palace, according to its Abu Dhabi-based owner.
The 10,000 square-foot (929 square-meter) apartment at No. 1 Palace St. across the street from the royal residence will probably fetch about 60 million pounds ($92 million), Jassim Alseddiqi, chief executive officer of Abu Dhabi Financial Group LLC, said in an interview in the capital of the United Arab Emirates on Monday.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zainab Fattah, BloombergMs. Fattah may be contacted at
zfattah@bloomberg.net
